2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: edster48 on September 14, 2014, 09:11:18 AM
-
From todays paper
Police shootings prompt questions
Criminology experts criticize how HPD has handled recent officer-involved fatalities
[url=http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/20140914__Police_shootings_prompt_questions.html?id=275042421]http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/20140914__Police_shootings_prompt_questions.html?id=275042421 (http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/20140914__Police_shootings_prompt_questions.html?id=275042421)[/url]
Edited: Sorry can't cut and paste the entire paid subscription article.
-
Your link is whack
-
Yep, trying to figure it out.
-
Found the article on the star advertiser website but I don't have a subscription so I cannot read it........... How about you paste the text into this thread.
-
Found the article on the star advertiser website but I don't have a subscription so I cannot read it........... How about you paste the text into this thread.
Thanks, even that was a pain in the ass, but it's up now.
-
From Dorothy Goldsborough, who teaches criminology at the UH-Manoa and Chaminade University:
"She blames easy access to guns, including for people with criminal intent."
So what exactly does she blame "easy access to guns" for with law-abiding citizens? She could just be honest and say "No guns for anyone... except those who work for the government monopoly of violence". A gun prohibitionist being honest? I guess not.
-
From Dorothy Goldsborough, who teaches criminology at the UH-Manoa and Chaminade University:
So what exactly does she blame "easy access to guns" for with law-abiding citizens? She could just be honest and say "No guns for anyone... except those who work for the government monopoly of violence". A gun prohibitionist being honest? I guess not.
She means that EVERY gun owner is to blame as to why officers must wear bullet proof vests. She reminds me of
(http://joesgeekfest.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/x-men-days-of-future-past-bolivar-trask.jpg)
where every mutant is a threat
-
From Dorothy Goldsborough, who teaches criminology at the UH-Manoa and Chaminade University:
So what exactly does she blame "easy access to guns" for with law-abiding citizens? She could just be honest and say "No guns for anyone... except those who work for the government monopoly of violence". A gun prohibitionist being honest? I guess not.
Anybody who lives in Hawaii and thinks residents have "easy access to guns" has obviously never purchased a new gun!!
"Easy" needs to be defined. Of course, that would require facts from someone more experienced than an academic who has never purchased a firearm.
-
Although I do believe that police brutality and excessive force are real things, I think that people generally are extremely hard on the officers who have had to use firearms in the line of duty. The officers get just a few split seconds to make a decision while these journalist gets months of evidence and questions and investigating to come to their conclusions. I think that the media needs to be a little more sensitive to the fact that these officers are going through some things as well after killing a person while working. I highly doubt any of these officers woke up that morning thinking "I can't wait to kill a 51 year old drunk man." Just my $.02.
-
HPD officers have found a way to manipulate someone trying to drive away in the minds of the public by calling it "attempted murder"
Every time anyone drives off, some officer claims he was in fear of his life and justifies having to kill the driver.
It's about time an external investigation is being conducted.
Chief. Kealoha has proven that he doesn't care about the facts and will simply back up any HPD officer that murders anyone else in Hawaii.
HPD is in serious need of a major personnel overhaul.
A wise man once said " A fish stinks from the head first"
-
Lol... I can't wait to see the training event where we try dodging moving vehicles...
Pro tip: don't drive your car at law enforcement (or other persons).
-
Chief. Kealoha has proven that he doesn't care about the facts and will simply back up any HPD officer that murders anyone else in Hawaii.
HPD is in serious need of a major personnel overhaul.
A wise man once said " A fish stinks from the head first"
This is why I disfavor the Chief law enforcement officer not being elected. If we don't like what is going on, they should be replaceable by the people's choice.
-
Lol... I can't wait to see the training event where we try dodging moving vehicles...
There's an app for that
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.konami.DASH.frogger_IGA&hl=en (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.konami.DASH.frogger_IGA&hl=en)
(http://www.theirishduck.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/frogger.png)
-
Lol... I can't wait to see the training event where we try dodging moving vehicles...
Pro tip: don't drive your car at law enforcement (or other persons).
I wonder if the reason why people try to drive away is because they're afraid of getting shot?
But you're definitely right. People, stop trying to drive away when a police officer stops you. (the officer will say that you were driving at him, and kill you so you can't say otherwise)
-
These liberals even want the police to be disarmed and banned from self-defense. Every citizen has a RIGHT to be able to defend themselves and loved ones from harm from any violence perpetrated against them. Call it God given, Natural, or whatever; common sense dictates the person has this right. Not to mention it is in our BILL OF RIGHTS. Police's job is to address people who may have violent intention either knowingly or not. They must react to protect others and themselves in a moment’s notice. Investigations need to be conducted and open, YES. However, throwing the police UNDER THE BUS (the only persons allowed carrying a firearm for defense and protection, in this asinine state), is not such a good idea, is it? Who are you going to call to protect you, WHEN YOU ARE NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO PROCTECT YOURSELF?
-
Pro tip: don't drive your car at law enforcement (or other persons).
You seem to have missed where KK clearly wrote this:
"Every time anyone drives off, some officer claims he was in fear of his life and justifies having to kill the driver."
Must have missed where the cops were terrified about cars speeding at them. They seem rather excitable, prone to shoot for the slightest reason.
Disarming them might not be such a bad notion, since now they have pretty much a license to shoot and get away with it?
-
This kind of thing used to be quite rare. 20-30 years ago you didn't hear about police officers shooting drunk, uncooperative drivers. I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that it was far from the norm.
I seem to remember that back then, they would use their police cruisers to block in and immobilize the vehicle before getting out of the car to arrest the driver. This seems like a better alternative than waltzing your narrow ass in front of a 2 ton mass of metal, capable of squashing you like a bug, and demanding the driver get out of the vehicle based on his respect for the law. Criminals will rarely show such respect, and LEO's should know that.
Those of you espousing that the officers only have "split seconds" to make a decision are correct. That doesn't automatically mean the decision they made was right. That's precisely the reason their actions need to be questioned.
Some will say "You have no right to second guess the officers decision, you weren't there and don't know the circumstances" BS. We have every right, and in fact an obligation to do so. These people work FOR us and their actions therefore reflect upon us. This shouldn't simply be left to the police department and their "experts" as they have a vested interest in an outcome favoring them.
This doesn't mean we're "throwing them under the bus" but the fact remains, they shouldn't be thinking that simply shooting someone because they haven't cooperated is the first or only option.
They need to be better than that.
-
Yup, I'm convinced that every cop is itching to kill someone just for kicks. Who wouldn't want to get suspended, blasted all over the news, get their family humiliated, get death threats, face termination, end up in jail with criminals he put there, live with the death of another person on their hands for life, have their kids catch sh*t at school, get sued etc..............The benefits are endless.............................
::) :wacko:
While I'd agree that being in front or to the rear of a chronic in a car is just plain stupid, the side of that car can turn into the front/rear in a split second when that chronic cranks the wheel and pounds it. To think that any cop, or any (normal)person for that matter WANT's to use deadly force and subject themselves to all that comes with that decision is rediculous!
-
I don't think anyone here, myself included, thinks police officers are "itching to shoot someone".
The problem that is pointed out in the article, and the point I'm trying to make is that it seems as if LEO's are putting themselves in situations where if anything goes wrong the only viable alternative seems to be to shoot the citizen. Whether this is a product of faulty training or just poor decision making on the part of the officer is what we need to find out. Their job is a difficult one, they don't know what to expect when they walk up on a vehicle and precisely because of this, they need to be thinking several moves ahead. Their training should prepare them for this, if it's not, we need to make some corrections.
The last two guys that were shot were surely no great loss to humanity and certainly not worth the life of an officer. What about the next time? We're seeing an exponential increase in the number of cases where police are using excessive force across the nation, not to mention flat out abuse of power. This needs to be brought under control before it becomes the expected response.
Otherwise we'll need to get used to living in a police state.
-
http://archives.starbulletin.com/2005/04/13/news/index6.html (http://archives.starbulletin.com/2005/04/13/news/index6.html)
-
Lol... I can't wait to see the training event where we try dodging moving vehicles...
Pro tip: don't drive your car at law enforcement (or other persons).
On the other hand, police shouldn't be able to jump in front of a moving vehicle and then claim murderous intent by the driver, either....
-
Lol... I can't wait to see the training event where we try dodging moving vehicles...
Pro tip: don't drive your car at law enforcement (or other persons).
When it's your turn, PLEASE take a video! ;D
I keed, I keed. . .
-
On the other hand, police shouldn't be able to jump in front of a moving vehicle and then claim murderous intent by the driver, either....
Amen
:closed:
-
Thanks, even that was a pain in the ass, but it's up now.
Can you post the text of the article for those without a subscription?
-
Can you post the text of the article for those without a subscription?
From the orig. post:
Edited: Sorry can't cut and paste the entire paid subscription article.
Forum policy ... you can link, but you can't copy and paste copyrighted material.
:wave:
-
HPD officers have found a way to manipulate someone trying to drive away in the minds of the public by calling it "attempted murder"
Every time anyone drives off, some officer claims he was in fear of his life and justifies having to kill the driver.
It's about time an external investigation is being conducted.
Chief. Kealoha has proven that he doesn't care about the facts and will simply back up any HPD officer that murders anyone else in Hawaii.
HPD is in serious need of a major personnel overhaul.
A wise man once said " A fish stinks from the head first"
Lets analyze that basic statement for a moment but in a basic way, not in detail of a thousand different ways it could happen.
The officer is in front of a vehicle that needs to be stopped for either enforcement of the law (catch a law breaker) or to protect the public (someone about to drive drunk, etc).
The operator of that vehicle is able to see that the officer is in the way of the stopped vehicle and instructing the driver to stop.
The operator begins to drive towards the officer in obvious defiance of the previously mentioned fact thereby placing that officer in danger of death or serious injury
Now play the role of an officer, either the one in front of the vehicle in danger or the partner of the officer in danger. Would you fear a vehicle about to run you or a friend over? Would you just assume that he is going to accelerate quickly at you but stop inches before hitting you?
To be clear we aren't talking about some little old lady who is hard of hearing, the last few vehicle shootings were not some case of some innocent person with bad driving skills. The most recent Waikiki case we had a drunk person who showed an inability to drive, a refusal to listen to the officer, the continued attempt at driving (in a crowded area), a second crash and a third attempt at driving. In that case not only do you have a situation of the officer fearing his own safety but you have a situation where the operator of the vehicle poses a very serious threat to motorists and pedestrians. That driver had multiple chances to stop his car and comply with the officer's instructions yet he continued to ignore them.
-
From the orig. post:
Forum policy ... you can link, but you can't copy and paste copyrighted material.
:wave:
Yep, forgot about copyright law. lesson learned. Sucks because it's a good article.
-
On the other hand, police shouldn't be able to jump in front of a moving vehicle and then claim murderous intent by the driver, either....
I do believe that in the most recent vehicle shooting cases that the officers stepped in front of a stopped motor vehicle. It's not like they jumped in front of a vehicle doing 60mph on the H1 and gave the driver a half second to come to a complete stop.
-
Lets analyze that basic statement for a moment but in a basic waythrough a police officers point of view, not in detail of a thousand different ways it could happen.
The officer is in front of a vehicle that needs to be stopped *Standing in front of a moving vehicle is stupid and should not be taught by police academies
for either enforcement of the law (catch a law breaker) or to protect the public (someone about to drive drunk, etc).
The operator of that vehicle is able to see that the officer is in the way of the stopped vehicle and instructing the driver to stop. *Speculative
The operator begins to drive towards the officer in obvious defiance of the previously mentioned fact thereby placing that officer in danger of death or serious injury *If the aforementioned officer had not jumped out in front of a moving car, he would not be in any danger.
Now play the role of an officer, *OK, since I'm a police officer, let me make a mental note to self not to jump in front of moving cars.
Would you fear a vehicle about to run you or a friend over? *Nope, my friend and I are smart enough to not jump in front of moving cars.
Would you just assume that he is going to accelerate quickly at you but stop inches before hitting you? *An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
To be clear we aren't talking about some little old lady who is hard of hearing, the last few vehicle shootings were not some case of some innocent person with bad driving skills. The most recent Waikiki case we had a drunk person who showed an inability to drive, a refusal to listen to the officer, the continued attempt at driving (in a crowded area), a second crash and a third attempt at driving. In that case not only do you have a situation of the officer fearing his own safety *Lets be honest. That officer was not in fear of his own safety at all.
but you have a situation where the operator of the vehicle poses a very serious threat to motorists and pedestrians. *And that justifies murder?
That driver had multiple chances to stop his car and comply with the officer's instructions yet he continued to ignore them. *Yup, he deserved a killin for refusing to listen.
-
Lets analyze that basic statement for a moment but in a basic way, not in detail of a thousand different ways it could happen.
The officer is in front of a vehicle that needs to be stopped for either enforcement of the law (catch a law breaker) or to protect the public (someone about to drive drunk, etc).
The operator of that vehicle is able to see that the officer is in the way of the stopped vehicle and instructing the driver to stop.
The operator begins to drive towards the officer in obvious defiance of the previously mentioned fact thereby placing that officer in danger of death or serious injury
Now play the role of an officer, either the one in front of the vehicle in danger or the partner of the officer in danger. Would you fear a vehicle about to run you or a friend over? Would you just assume that he is going to accelerate quickly at you but stop inches before hitting you?
To be clear we aren't talking about some little old lady who is hard of hearing, the last few vehicle shootings were not some case of some innocent person with bad driving skills. The most recent Waikiki case we had a drunk person who showed an inability to drive, a refusal to listen to the officer, the continued attempt at driving (in a crowded area), a second crash and a third attempt at driving. In that case not only do you have a situation of the officer fearing his own safety but you have a situation where the operator of the vehicle poses a very serious threat to motorists and pedestrians. That driver had multiple chances to stop his car and comply with the officer's instructions yet he continued to ignore them.
OK, let's use that last example, and I'll do it the "old fashioned way".
I observe the car in front of me run into the back of a bus. I turn on my flashers, get out and approach the vehicle. I ask the driver "What happened there buddy?" He responds with an expletive and takes a pull from an open beer he's holding. I lean into the vehicle, and explain that drinking and driving is illegal and ask him to shut off the car and get out for a sobriety test as he's obviously drunk. He responds with another expletive. I then crack him twice, hard, in the side of his head, reach over and shut the car off. I open the door and try to remove his safety belt, he begins to resist, I hit him, hard, again, then I yank his drunk butt out of the vehicle, throw him face first onto the pavement, put a knee in his back and cuff his ass. I then drag his drunk butt over to the curb and deposit him to await the cruiser that I've just called to transport him to the cellblock for booking, I read him his rights and I call a tow truck. Now all that's left is the paperwork.
Pretty neat huh? The really cool thing is, nobody dies. My hand is a little sore, but other than that, I'm feeling pretty good about the outcome.
You can't tell me he couldn't have done it that way because I saw the video of the incident and I've seen similar incidents play out in the same fashion over the years.
-
OK, let's use that last example, and I'll do it the "old fashioned way".
I observe the car in front of me run into the back of a bus. I turn on my flashers, get out and approach the vehicle. I ask the driver "What happened there buddy?" He responds with an expletive and takes a pull from an open beer he's holding. I lean into the vehicle, and explain that drinking and driving is illegal and ask him to shut off the car and get out for a sobriety test as he's obviously drunk. He responds with another expletive. I then crack him twice, hard, in the side of his head, reach over and shut the car off. I open the door and try to remove his safety belt, he begins to resist, I hit him, hard, again, then I yank his drunk butt out of the vehicle, throw him face first onto the pavement, put a knee in his back and cuff his ass. I then drag his drunk butt over to the curb and deposit him to await the cruiser that I've just called to transport him to the cellblock for booking, I read him his rights and I call a tow truck. Now all that's left is the paperwork.
Pretty neat huh? The really cool thing is, nobody dies. My hand is a little sore, but other than that, I'm feeling pretty good about the outcome.
You can't tell me he couldn't have done it that way because I saw the video of the incident and I've seen similar incidents play out in the same fashion over the years.
He'll sober up, call Leavitt, Yamane & Soldner or Hawaii's version of Johnny Cochran - Michael Green, and sue you for police brutality.
Then Hawaii News Now and the Star Advertiser will "investigate" and paint the suspect as a product of a broken home or victim of alcohol usage (aka drunk ass). Then they will have relatives say "He was a good boy, he just made wrong decision"
-
He'll sober up, call Leavitt, Yamane & Soldner or Hawaii's version of Johnny Cochran - Michael Green, and sue you for police brutality.
Then Hawaii News Now and the Star Advertiser will "investigate" and paint the suspect as a product of a broken home or victim of alcohol usage (aka drunk ass). Then they will have relatives say "He was a good boy, he just made wrong decision"
This is a totally different problem. What happens with the legal and civil battles to follow are up to the various parties and how much they think they can prove in court.
Unless you are advocating for shooting suspects to prevent them from suing, then what you say here changes nothing about the LEO encounter.
-
OK, let's use that last example, and I'll do it the "old fashioned way".
I observe the car in front of me run into the back of a bus. I turn on my flashers, get out and approach the vehicle. I ask the driver "What happened there buddy?" He responds with an expletive and takes a pull from an open beer he's holding. I lean into the vehicle, and explain that drinking and driving is illegal and ask him to shut off the car and get out for a sobriety test as he's obviously drunk. He responds with another expletive. I then crack him twice, hard, in the side of his head, reach over and shut the car off. I open the door and try to remove his safety belt, he begins to resist, I hit him, hard, again, then I yank his drunk butt out of the vehicle, throw him face first onto the pavement, put a knee in his back and cuff his ass. I then drag his drunk butt over to the curb and deposit him to await the cruiser that I've just called to transport him to the cellblock for booking, I read him his rights and I call a tow truck. Now all that's left is the paperwork.
Pretty neat huh? The really cool thing is, nobody dies. My hand is a little sore, but other than that, I'm feeling pretty good about the outcome.
You can't tell me he couldn't have done it that way because I saw the video of the incident and I've seen similar incidents play out in the same fashion over the years.
Wait a hot rotten cotton pickin minute.
Are you trying to tell me that a police officer can do something besides pull his gun out and shoot someone?
Come on.
This must be a good police officer or something. I mean to protect and serve the community without recklessly killing people.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMfdoyKjGDo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMfdoyKjGDo)
4:29 of the video. C.A.T. Control and Arrest Tactics.
Maybe they should cover tactics (or think of better ones) when walking up to a drunk driver.
-
Lets analyze that basic statement for a moment but in a basic way, not in detail of a thousand different ways it could happen.
The officer is in front of a vehicle that needs to be stopped for either enforcement of the law (catch a law breaker) or to protect the public (someone about to drive drunk, etc).
The operator of that vehicle is able to see that the officer is in the way of the stopped vehicle and instructing the driver to stop.
The operator begins to drive towards the officer in obvious defiance of the previously mentioned fact thereby placing that officer in danger of death or serious injury
Now play the role of an officer, either the one in front of the vehicle in danger or the partner of the officer in danger. Would you fear a vehicle about to run you or a friend over? Would you just assume that he is going to accelerate quickly at you but stop inches before hitting you?
To be clear we aren't talking about some little old lady who is hard of hearing, the last few vehicle shootings were not some case of some innocent person with bad driving skills. The most recent Waikiki case we had a drunk person who showed an inability to drive, a refusal to listen to the officer, the continued attempt at driving (in a crowded area), a second crash and a third attempt at driving. In that case not only do you have a situation of the officer fearing his own safety but you have a situation where the operator of the vehicle poses a very serious threat to motorists and pedestrians. That driver had multiple chances to stop his car and comply with the officer's instructions yet he continued to ignore them.
Let's look at this situation considering two salient legal facts: First, the police have no legal duty to protect any one, unless they are already under arrest. So, any argument that tries to justify an officer purposefully stepping in front of a vehicle because they had to stop the driver for public safety is moot. Since there is no legal duty to remain in a dangerous situation, prudence and common sense would seem to dictate that getting out of the way is the better choice than shooting to stop the driver. Additionally, even if the officer were to successfully incapacitate the driver, that wouldn't necessarily eliminate the risk to the officer or the public as errant rounds could impact bystanders or the momentum of the now driverless vehicle could well propel it into the officer or any member of the public in the immediate vicinity.
Second, let's look at the situation from the perspective of the non-LEO (who similarly, has no duty to protect others) who would have to argue why he felt his life was in jeopardy in a similar situation. Have you ever heard of a non-LEO shooting at a driver to stop them? If so, did they successfully argue a self-defense claim? I have read stories of individuals shooting a fleeing vehicles, but never at one that was going to hit them. In those accounts the shooters were prosecuted because there was no justification to use deadly force. Do you really think a trier of fact would find someone claiming self-defense justified after stepping in front of a moving vehicle then claiming he felt threatened enough to shoot? I'm thinking that most judges/juries would ask the obvious question: "why didn't you get out of the way?" Granted there may be situations where moving out of the way may not be possible, such as when trapped in a dead end alley, but I think those would be rare. The other question I'm sure they'd ask, is why you jumped in front of the car to begin with.
Bottom line: IMHO, police should be able to to use deadly force on the driver of a vehicle, but should not be allowed to purposefully place themselves in front of a vehicle and then use that as the sole justification of deadly force.
-
Let's look at this situation considering two salient legal facts: First, the police have no legal duty to protect any one, unless they are already under arrest. So, any argument that tries to justify an officer purposefully stepping in front of a vehicle because they had to stop the driver for public safety is moot. Since there is no legal duty to remain in a dangerous situation, prudence and common sense would seem to dictate that getting out of the way is the better choice than shooting to stop the driver. Additionally, even if the officer were to successfully incapacitate the driver, that wouldn't necessarily eliminate the risk to the officer or the public as errant rounds could impact bystanders or the momentum of the now driverless vehicle could well propel it into the officer or any member of the public in the immediate vicinity.
Second, let's look at the situation from the perspective of the non-LEO (who similarly, has no duty to protect others) who would have to argue why he felt his life was in jeopardy in a similar situation. Have you ever heard of a non-LEO shooting at a driver to stop them? If so, did they successfully argue a self-defense claim? I have read stories of individuals shooting a fleeing vehicles, but never at one that was going to hit them. In those accounts the shooters were prosecuted because there was no justification to use deadly force. Do you really think a trier of fact would find someone claiming self-defense justified after stepping in front of a moving vehicle then claiming he felt threatened enough to shoot? I'm thinking that most judges/juries would ask the obvious question: "why didn't you get out of the way?" Granted there may be situations where moving out of the way may not be possible, such as when trapped in a dead end alley, but I think those would be rare. The other question I'm sure they'd ask, is why you jumped in front of the car to begin with.
Bottom line: IMHO, police should be able to to use deadly force on the driver of a vehicle, but should not be allowed to purposefully place themselves in front of a vehicle and then use that as the sole justification of deadly force.
Your argument is very close to the existing laws on self-defense against another person. If you instigate the confrontation (i.e. you were the aggressor), you can not then claim self defense as a justification for using deadly force against the other person. Otherwise, in order to justify killing someone you just can't stand, you only have to start a fight, let them throw a few punches, then claim self defense.
Same holds true if you leave the place where someone was threatening you, get a gun from your car or from your home next door, then return to confront the threat. Once you were no longer in the same house, you had every opportunity to not return, thereby avoiding any threat without use of deadly force.
-
Your argument is very close to the existing laws on self-defense against another person. If you instigate the confrontation (i.e. you were the aggressor), you can not then claim self defense as a justification for using deadly force against the other person. Otherwise, in order to justify killing someone you just can't stand, you only have to start a fight, let them throw a few punches, then claim self defense.
Same holds true if you leave the place where someone was threatening you, get a gun from your car or from your home next door, then return to confront the threat. Once you were no longer in the same house, you had every opportunity to not return, thereby avoiding any threat without use of deadly force.
You are correct....except that if you initiate a mutual combat situation and in the course of that "fight" you quit but your opponent doesn't, you could be justified in using deadly force.
Furthermore, if you start a fight without intending do great bodily harm or kill, and your opponent "ups the ante" and you now fear death or great bodily harm, you could be justified in using deadly force.
Commentary from HRS 703-304: "Deadly force may not be used if the actor provoked his assailant's use of force against himself in the same encounter with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily injury. Of course, if he intends only moderate harm and receives a deadly response, the initial aggressor may respond with deadly force."
-
Let's look at this situation considering two salient legal facts: First, the police have no legal duty to protect any one, unless they are already under arrest. So, any argument that tries to justify an officer purposefully stepping in front of a vehicle because they had to stop the driver for public safety is moot. Since there is no legal duty to remain in a dangerous situation, prudence and common sense would seem to dictate that getting out of the way is the better choice than shooting to stop the driver. Additionally, even if the officer were to successfully incapacitate the driver, that wouldn't necessarily eliminate the risk to the officer or the public as errant rounds could impact bystanders or the momentum of the now driverless vehicle could well propel it into the officer or any member of the public in the immediate vicinity.
Second, let's look at the situation from the perspective of the non-LEO (who similarly, has no duty to protect others) who would have to argue why he felt his life was in jeopardy in a similar situation. Have you ever heard of a non-LEO shooting at a driver to stop them? If so, did they successfully argue a self-defense claim? I have read stories of individuals shooting a fleeing vehicles, but never at one that was going to hit them. In those accounts the shooters were prosecuted because there was no justification to use deadly force. Do you really think a trier of fact would find someone claiming self-defense justified after stepping in front of a moving vehicle then claiming he felt threatened enough to shoot? I'm thinking that most judges/juries would ask the obvious question: "why didn't you get out of the way?" Granted there may be situations where moving out of the way may not be possible, such as when trapped in a dead end alley, but I think those would be rare. The other question I'm sure they'd ask, is why you jumped in front of the car to begin with.
Bottom line: IMHO, police should be able to to use deadly force on the driver of a vehicle, but should not be allowed to purposefully place themselves in front of a vehicle and then use that as the sole justification of deadly force.
Just because a duty to provide a standard of care to an individual does not exist for the police in tort law, does not mean there is no duty. Their contracts may require it, especially if uniformed.
-
Lets analyze that basic statement for a moment but in a basic waythrough a police officers point of view, not in detail of a thousand different ways it could happen.
The officer is in front of a vehicle that needs to be stopped *Standing in front of a moving vehicle is stupid and should not be taught by police academies
for either enforcement of the law (catch a law breaker) or to protect the public (someone about to drive drunk, etc).
The operator of that vehicle is able to see that the officer is in the way of the stopped vehicle and instructing the driver to stop. *Speculative
The operator begins to drive towards the officer in obvious defiance of the previously mentioned fact thereby placing that officer in danger of death or serious injury *If the aforementioned officer had not jumped out in front of a moving car, he would not be in any danger.
Now play the role of an officer, *OK, since I'm a police officer, let me make a mental note to self not to jump in front of moving cars.
Would you fear a vehicle about to run you or a friend over? *Nope, my friend and I are smart enough to not jump in front of moving cars.
Would you just assume that he is going to accelerate quickly at you but stop inches before hitting you? *An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
To be clear we aren't talking about some little old lady who is hard of hearing, the last few vehicle shootings were not some case of some innocent person with bad driving skills. The most recent Waikiki case we had a drunk person who showed an inability to drive, a refusal to listen to the officer, the continued attempt at driving (in a crowded area), a second crash and a third attempt at driving. In that case not only do you have a situation of the officer fearing his own safety *Lets be honest. That officer was not in fear of his own safety at all.
but you have a situation where the operator of the vehicle poses a very serious threat to motorists and pedestrians. *And that justifies murder?
That driver had multiple chances to stop his car and comply with the officer's instructions yet he continued to ignore them. *Yup, he deserved a killin for refusing to listen.
You are assuming that the cars are always moving when the officers moved in the way, as opposed to an officer stepping in front of a stopped car that then accelerates towards the officer. To be clear officers aren't jumping in front of a car going 50mph then shooting the driver because the driver didn't stop within 10 feet. Most of these situations involve vehicles that were stopped. The last two in Waikiki were situations in which the car wasn't speeding away and an officer threw himself in the path of the car. The one caught from the high rise shows that the car drives forward and reverses towards officers from stopped positions. In the most recent shooting I can assure you the officer did feel fear when he was nearly run over by the car once.
Now to address you other main assertion that about the driver who is a danger to others, yes that may justify lethal force and in that case it's not murder because it was justified. It is not a case of deserving death or not it is a case of necessary force to stop the threat. Someone who has shown the inability to drive safely repeatedly, a refusal to stop the vehicle repeatedly, an attempt to drive again and do so in a crowded area is being a serious threat to everyone else. Had lethal force not been used and the guy plowed into a group of tourists killing a bunch of them people would be asking why the officer didn't shot. Perhaps the officer should let the suspect drive into a crowd of people because the offense committed didn't deserve death?
-
OK, let's use that last example, and I'll do it the "old fashioned way".
I observe the car in front of me run into the back of a bus. I turn on my flashers, get out and approach the vehicle. I ask the driver "What happened there buddy?" He responds with an expletive and takes a pull from an open beer he's holding. I lean into the vehicle, and explain that drinking and driving is illegal and ask him to shut off the car and get out for a sobriety test as he's obviously drunk. He responds with another expletive. I then crack him twice, hard, in the side of his head, reach over and shut the car off. I open the door and try to remove his safety belt, he begins to resist, I hit him, hard, again, then I yank his drunk butt out of the vehicle, throw him face first onto the pavement, put a knee in his back and cuff his ass. I then drag his drunk butt over to the curb and deposit him to await the cruiser that I've just called to transport him to the cellblock for booking, I read him his rights and I call a tow truck. Now all that's left is the paperwork.
Pretty neat huh? The really cool thing is, nobody dies. My hand is a little sore, but other than that, I'm feeling pretty good about the outcome.
You can't tell me he couldn't have done it that way because I saw the video of the incident and I've seen similar incidents play out in the same fashion over the years.
Last I checked swear words don't justify blows to the face. Now lets say you did have good reason to hit him in the face and then you go for the keys per the rest of your plan. Guess what, this has happened before (grabbing the keys) and often the officer gets dragged by the vehicle. Not so simple is it.
Oh and forgot to mention if the guy drives away dragging the officer and the officer shoots because his life is in danger they will still turn around and say the officer put him/herself in danger.
Officers have a job which requires them to place themselves within danger. If someone tells you that there is no duty to step in and protect then they don't know what they are talking about. If one person is beating up another and the officer stands and watches because he doesn't want to place himself in any danger then he gets fired for cowardice. Now there are limits of course, an officer isn't expected to go into a burning building, for example, but yes they are required to go protect someone.
If a cop watched a suspect stab your grandma to death and did nothing are we all just going to sit around and say to ourselves, sucks for grandma since the officer has no duty to protect.?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMfdoyKjGDo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMfdoyKjGDo)
4:29 of the video. C.A.T. Control and Arrest Tactics.
Maybe they should cover tactics (or think of better ones) when walking up to a drunk driver.
An officer sprays the driver who then takes off and crashes into people because the pepper spray blinds him temporarily. Officers will be held liable, sorry it really isn't that simple.
-
An officer sprays the driver who then takes off and crashes into people because the pepper spray blinds him temporarily. Officers will be held liable, sorry it really isn't that simple.
First of all I am not saying to pepper spray anyone. I did say "think of better" tactics. Also I did not say it was simple.
Because we value life I believe tactics and strategies should always be looked at if they can be improved not only tactics and strategies for the safety of the officer but more importantly the citizen.
-
Last I checked swear words don't justify blows to the face. Now lets say you did have good reason to hit him in the face and then you go for the keys per the rest of your plan. Guess what, this has happened before (grabbing the keys) and often the officer gets dragged by the vehicle. Not so simple is it.
Oh and forgot to mention if the guy drives away dragging the officer and the officer shoots because his life is in danger they will still turn around and say the officer put him/herself in danger.
Officers have a job which requires them to place themselves within danger. If someone tells you that there is no duty to step in and protect then they don't know what they are talking about. If one person is beating up another and the officer stands and watches because he doesn't want to place himself in any danger then he gets fired for cowardice. Now there are limits of course, an officer isn't expected to go into a burning building, for example, but yes they are required to go protect someone.
If a cop watched a suspect stab your grandma to death and did nothing are we all just going to sit around and say to ourselves, sucks for grandma since the officer has no duty to protect.?
Last time I checked, failure to obey a direct order from a police officer attempting to detain you for a crime { drunk driving, resisting } was cause for an officer to utilize physical force to gain control of the situation.
Your argument doesn't hold water on another level as well. It's not okay for the officer to hit the uncooperative suspect with his fists, but it's "okay" to shoot them?
Please tell me in what universe this is logical.
The only time in the video that this officer was "in danger" from the vehicle was when he attempted his "Fred Flintstone Car Disabling Maneuver". If he was in danger beyond what the video showed, it would be because he placed himself in front of a moving vehicle. The argument that "he shot to protect others" is suspect as well do to fact that were any of us "commoners" to do the same thing for the same reason, we would end up in prison for manslaughter at the very least.
Not so simple is it.
-
First of all I am not saying to pepper spray anyone. I did say "think of better" tactics. Also I did not say it was simple.
Because we value life I believe tactics and strategies should always be looked at if they can be improved not only tactics and strategies for the safety of the officer but more importantly the citizen.
I agree we can and always should strive to a better ideal. I merely mentioned the pepper spray because that was popped up at the time quoted on the video. I believe that HPD advises officers against reaching into a car where the suspect is going to flee because of the danger of being dragged and/or run over. I have seen enough wild and crazy police world whatever TV shows to have seen it caught on dash cameras a number of times. I think it is a very difficult situation with only seconds to make a decision and it sometimes ends up being that no matter what the officer did the outcome will be bad.
-
You are assuming that the cars are always moving when the officers moved in the way, as opposed to an officer stepping in front of a stopped car that then accelerates towards the officer. To be clear officers aren't jumping in front of a car going 50mph then shooting the driver because the driver didn't stop within 10 feet. Most of these situations involve vehicles that were stopped.
I believe that HPD advises officers against reaching into a car where the suspect is going to flee because of the danger of being dragged and/or run over.
So in one sentence you say that the officer was justified in murdering the drunk driver in Waikiki because he didn't stop.
Yet in your next sentence you admit that HPD policy is to not reach into vehicles for the officers safety.
Let's be honest here.
Super cop made a mistake and it cost a man his life.
Your contention that the driver could have possibly run someone over and he just might have killed kids and puppies is asinine.
This is the same argument that antigun activists use in their support of gun control and the abolishment of the 2nd amendment.
"we need to take those dangerous guns out of the home because a child could pick it up and kill everyone"
-
Last time I checked, failure to obey a direct order from a police officer attempting to detain you for a crime { drunk driving, resisting } was cause for an officer to utilize physical force to gain control of the situation.
Your argument doesn't hold water on another level as well. It's not okay for the officer to hit the uncooperative suspect with his fists, but it's "okay" to shoot them?
Please tell me in what universe this is logical.
The only time in the video that this officer was "in danger" from the vehicle was when he attempted his "Fred Flintstone Car Disabling Maneuver". If he was in danger beyond what the video showed, it would be because he placed himself in front of a moving vehicle. The argument that "he shot to protect others" is suspect as well do to fact that were any of us "commoners" to do the same thing for the same reason, we would end up in prison for manslaughter at the very least.
Not so simple is it.
Blows to the face are not authorized levels of force for non compliance, strikes are limited towards active aggression. This is not to say that strikes can never be used at lesser levels of resistance/aggression however they need to be justified and reviewed on a case by case basis. Having said that a similar situation might occur in which an officer could justify strikes to the face against a person seated in a car not listening to the officer but then we would get into a bunch of hypothetical situations.
As for shooting but not hitting, the scenario mentioned was that the officer punch the driver upon receiving verbal noncompliance before the suspect had a chance to drive off. In that scenario the situation hasn't escalated to the level of deadly force. In the real life case the driver took multiple other actions which escalated the scenario, so you cannot really compare the use of deadly force in those two situations since they are at drastically different levels.
I don't know all the details of that shooting but I have seen the video as shown by the local news. To me there is not enough in the video alone to really show either justified force or unjustified force. There may have been further developments in the case that I am not aware of.
Now if one of us commoners shot to stop a threat against the public of course we would be arrested because we can't have guns in public. But "commoners" also don't have the duty to protect the public that officers do, they also don't have the training officers do, they also are not uniformed and easily identifiable as agents with authority to take away civil rights (arrest/detain). This is not to say that were carry allowed that you couldn't shoot to stop someone posing a deadly threat similar to this but you would have to be very articulate and maybe get a lucky jury?
The case of someone driving away and posing a danger is a difficult one because they are taking actions that they know could cause death but their intent is not necessarily to injure rather just an attempt to flee. Now if that attempt to flee puts them on a crash course with a bunch of school kids then I am sorry but the threat needs to be stopped. Let me ask this question, you see a bunch of children in the cross walk and a motorcycle speeding towards them with no chance to stop in time or avoid them. You have the ability to pull your car in front of the motorcycle knowing that it would likely protect the children but may kill the motorcyclist, would you do it? It is not the same situation but it illustrates sometimes deadly force can be used to stop something that is a serious threat. There is no easy decision and sometimes there will always be a bad outcome with no shortage of people monday morning quarterbacking the situation.
I'll pose one more scenario that is a little off topic but I have wrestled with as not being able to get a clear decision on what I would do. Really just one of those tough choice scenarios that make you think. I am mentioning it as it popped into my head as vaguely related.
You are an officer and end up at a hospital where a patient with a very deadly disease has fled the hospital. The patient carries a virus that could spread easily and kill half the population if not controlled (picture the worst disease movie). You find the person running towards a crowd in the mall and you cannot reach the person before they reach the crowd. The patient sees your presence and refuses commands to stop. Is lethal force justified to stop the threat of the disease spreading even though the patient might just be running scared?
-
So in one sentence you say that the officer was justified in murdering the drunk driver in Waikiki because he didn't stop.
Yet in your next sentence you admit that HPD policy is to not reach into vehicles for the officers safety.
Let's be honest here.
Super cop made a mistake and it cost a man his life.
Your contention that the driver could have possibly run someone over and he just might have killed kids and puppies is asinine.
This is the same argument that antigun activists use in their support of gun control and the abolishment of the 2nd amendment.
"we need to take those dangerous guns out of the home because a child could pick it up and kill everyone"
I don't know all the facts of the case but it appears that the shooting was justified, which means it is not murder. Do not equate murder and killing, they are not the same thing. I did not make any statement justifying murder, nor did I say that the lethal force was justified because "the driver didn't stop." You are summarizing a complex series of events into an oversimplified statement which is rather disingenuous.
Tell me what is so asinine to consider that the driver might have hit and killed someone else?
Did the driver have the apparent skill to drive a vehicle without crashing? No
Did the driver care to follow instructions? No
Did the driver seem to care that he almost ran someone (the officer) over? No
Is Waikiki a densely populated area with lots of pedestrians? Yes
So what makes you think this driver would obey a stop light a block later where a family is crossing the street? He already showed he can't navigate the road without crashing, he already showed he doesn't care to follow the rules, and he already showed he was willing to nearly run over someone. There is a high probability that the driver will disregard the stoplight and disregard the pedestrians being in his path and a high probability that even if he tried to avoid the pedestrians he would still hit them.
-
Right.
So hitting him in the face while he's seated in a car to prevent him from driving away and possibly injuring others = Bad
Shooting him 5 times while he's seated in the car for the same reasons = Good
Got it. Thanks for playing.
-
Right.
So hitting him in the face while he's seated in a car to prevent him from driving away and possibly injuring others = Bad
Shooting him 5 times while he's seated in the car for the same reasons = Good
Got it. Thanks for playing.
Again, read the scenario in questioned. The hypothetical scenario simply said to punch a drunk driver who was verbally non compliant, it didn't say anything about almost running over the officer, or showing intention to drive away, etc. You are comparing one solution in one scenario to another solution in a much different scenario. I can't punch someone because they called me a bad name but I can shoot them if they are swinging a knife at me, yet you seem to equate the two and ask why I am allowed to shoot the guy swearing at me.
-
I just hope HPD looks at the video and analyze it. Hopefully they can come up with better means of dealing with a situation like this. What I do not want them to do is merely say the officer was justified and leave it at that.
-
I don't know all the facts of the case but it appears that the shooting was justified, which means it is not murder.
*If you don't know all the facts, then you are not qualified to make that assessment
Do not equate murder and killing, they are not the same thing.
*By the same token, do not presume that the murder was a justified killing
I did not make any statement justifying murder, nor did I say that the lethal force was justified because "the driver didn't stop." You are summarizing a complex series of events into an oversimplified statement which is rather disingenuous.
*The only thing I did was copy and paste your words. Only you could attest to their being disingenuous or not.
Tell me what is so asinine to consider that the driver might have hit and killed someone else?
Did the driver have the apparent skill to drive a vehicle without crashing? No
Did the driver care to follow instructions? No
Did the driver seem to care that he almost ran someone (the officer) over? No
Is Waikiki a densely populated area with lots of pedestrians? Yes
*Do you honestly believe that the officer in question thought to himself, this series of questions before murdering the driver?
"Hmm, this driver might drive into someone, I better shoot him"
"He doesn't seem to have the apparent skill to drive this vehicle without crashing, I better shoot him"
"He's not following my instructions, I better shoot him"
"I can just say that I thought he was going to run me over, I better shoot him"
"Waikiki is densely populated with pedestrians, I better shoot him"
So what makes you think this driver would obey a stop light a block later where a family is crossing the street?
*What I "think" is not the subject of debate here. To wallow in hypotheticals and twist them to suit your point of view isn't going to bring this man back to life.
We could go back and forth forever on this subject.
Unlike you though, I don't have a horse in this race.
You can keep on blindly arguing your opinions, I will no longer be a part of this conversation.
:shaka:
-
I don't know all the facts of the case but it appears that the shooting was justified, which means it is not murder. Do not equate murder and killing, they are not the same thing. I did not make any statement justifying murder, nor did I say that the lethal force was justified because "the driver didn't stop." You are summarizing a complex series of events into an oversimplified statement which is rather disingenuous.
Tell me what is so asinine to consider that the driver might have hit and killed someone else?
Did the driver have the apparent skill to drive a vehicle without crashing? No
Did the driver care to follow instructions? No
Did the driver seem to care that he almost ran someone (the officer) over? No
Is Waikiki a densely populated area with lots of pedestrians? Yes
So what makes you think this driver would obey a stop light a block later where a family is crossing the street? He already showed he can't navigate the road without crashing, he already showed he doesn't care to follow the rules, and he already showed he was willing to nearly run over someone. There is a high probability that the driver will disregard the stoplight and disregard the pedestrians being in his path and a high probability that even if he tried to avoid the pedestrians he would still hit them.
Tell me, how would this register on your justification scale....
You and your wife are driving home from a Christmas Party in Waikiki. You find yourself in a sobriety check point lane.
You had 2 mixed drinks an hour or so before leaving, so you're a little nervous. You just got your license reinstated after a DUI a year earlier, and you really can't see yourself losing it for even longer if you blow a 0.08.
As soon as you roll down the window, the officer makes a face like, "Uh oh. We got one!" Maybe you're just being paranoid since he hasn't said anything to you.
Suddenly, you make a bad decision ... in your panic, you hit the gas and drive past the check point. You're not screeching tires, but driving away as the police at the check point notice you refusing to stop on command.
So, you leave the check point, the COPs deduce you must be drunk and might cause an accident and hurt others, because you failed to comply to orders to stop.
Would you feel the police are justified in firing at you as you drive past the check point, ignoring orders to stop?
What if you really aren't drunk? What if you happen to have a bench warrant for your arrest and are afraid they'll arrest you? Would a now sober person ignoring orders to stop justify being shot?
What type of police force do you want? Whatever you tolerate will be the type we get.
-
I for one want a police department that just asks people to comply......if they don't the cops should understand that they have a good reason. Of course a chronic has better things to do than go through the hassle of going to jail. He has people to rob and cars to steal. And if he did stop the cops might find that gun under he seat....or he might have to shoot that cop so he was actually doing that cop a favor. Or or or.......
Sorry, but trying to rationalize running from the cops, damn!
Seriously, all the cop hate makes me wonder who just got arrested, had their weed green harvested or who's wife ran off with one.
Just sayin
-
I don't know all the facts of the case but it appears that the shooting was justified, which means it is not murder.
*If you don't know all the facts, then you are not qualified to make that assessment
And neither do you, yet you proclaim the officer's guilt.
I did not make any statement justifying murder, nor did I say that the lethal force was justified because "the driver didn't stop." You are summarizing a complex series of events into an oversimplified statement which is rather disingenuous.
*The only thing I did was copy and paste your words. Only you could attest to their being disingenuous or not.
Your statement certainly did not fir my quote.
*Do you honestly believe that the officer in question thought to himself, this series of questions before murdering the driver?
"Hmm, this driver might drive into someone, I better shoot him"
"He doesn't seem to have the apparent skill to drive this vehicle without crashing, I better shoot him"
"He's not following my instructions, I better shoot him"
"I can just say that I thought he was going to run me over, I better shoot him"
"Waikiki is densely populated with pedestrians, I better shoot him"
Hard to tell really. We don't know exactly what went through the officer's head. But even if he didn't think through each and every one the shooting could still be justified for those reasons.
So what makes you think this driver would obey a stop light a block later where a family is crossing the street?
*What I "think" is not the subject of debate here. To wallow in hypotheticals and twist them to suit your point of view isn't going to bring this man back to life.
I am trying to walk you through a reasonable assessment of the shooting, so yes what you think is relevant.
We could go back and forth forever on this subject.
Unlike you though, I don't have a horse in this race.
You can keep on blindly arguing your opinions, I will no longer be a part of this conversation.
Fair enough but I will say something when people are making monday morning quarterback claims when they don't know the whole picture.
-
Police officers are human, they make mistakes like every other human.
When their mistakes begin to err on the side of shooting unarmed citizenry for non compliance, logic would seem to be on the side of reviewing tactics in order to keep both sides as safe as possible.
I'm not trying to vilify the police, my point, and the point of the article, is that there are other options they failed to utilize that may have resulted in a different outcome.
-
I'm curious in the differences with the rules of engagement our military must adhere to in a warzone compared to that of the police here at home.
-
I for one want a police department that just asks people to comply......if they don't the cops should understand that they have a good reason. Of course a chronic has better things to do than go through the hassle of going to jail. He has people to rob and cars to steal. And if he did stop the cops might find that gun under he seat....or he might have to shoot that cop so he was actually doing that cop a favor. Or or or.......
Sorry, but trying to rationalize running from the cops, damn!
Seriously, all the cop hate makes me wonder who just got arrested, had their weed green harvested or who's wife ran off with one.
Just sayin
We have a Constitution and the right to NOT be killed for breaking traffic laws.
Just saying.
-
Hindsight is 20/20. Without being there at the time of the incident one can never know. Also, a similar Supreme Court case follows on the premise of the Waikiki shooting. Scott v. Harris.
The problem I see is the lack of transparency from SHOPO. If they would lay out the facts with the statute and court cases stating why the officer did what he did along with timeline of events it would go along way. HPD PR in a sense. The islands justice system with prosecutors and officers dealing behind closed doors just seems to shady for me. What about the officers in NV caught for drug charges? Back on the job? Or for that matter other officers that get DUI's or knowingly drive impaired.
-
Tell me, how would this register on your justification scale....
You and your wife are driving home from a Christmas Party in Waikiki. You find yourself in a sobriety check point lane.
You had 2 mixed drinks an hour or so before leaving, so you're a little nervous. You just got your license reinstated after a DUI a year earlier, and you really can't see yourself losing it for even longer if you blow a 0.08.
As soon as you roll down the window, the officer makes a face like, "Uh oh. We got one!" Maybe you're just being paranoid since he hasn't said anything to you.
Suddenly, you make a bad decision ... in your panic, you hit the gas and drive past the check point. You're not screeching tires, but driving away as the police at the check point notice you refusing to stop on command.
So, you leave the check point, the COPs deduce you must be drunk and might cause an accident and hurt others, because you failed to comply to orders to stop.
Would you feel the police are justified in firing at you as you drive past the check point, ignoring orders to stop?
What if you really aren't drunk? What if you happen to have a bench warrant for your arrest and are afraid they'll arrest you? Would a now sober person ignoring orders to stop justify being shot?
What type of police force do you want? Whatever you tolerate will be the type we get.
There are a few key differences which I believe would make this example not justified in comparison to the other case.
-In the waikiki case the individual crashed twice
-The suspect fled, the officer caught up giving orders a second time and the suspect fled again
-The suspect almost ran over the officer
-The suspect was attempting to run again.
In your scenario there is nothing to show that this person is unable to drive safely. There is nothing to show that this person was willing to drive towards an officer against the officer's lawful commands.
In my opinion those are key differences between someone just wanting to get away vs someone putting others in a very serious risk of harm to do so.
-
Police officers are human, they make mistakes like every other human.
When their mistakes begin to err on the side of shooting unarmed citizenry for non compliance, logic would seem to be on the side of reviewing tactics in order to keep both sides as safe as possible.
I'm not trying to vilify the police, my point, and the point of the article, is that there are other options they failed to utilize that may have resulted in a different outcome.
We could debate whether someone is unarmed if they are using a vehicle to commit an assault but lets leave that aside for now. But realistically the officers in most of these cases did not shoot for non compliance of some traffic law, they shot because the person driving the car was knowingly driving the car in such a way which would likely injure/kill someone. I say most because I don't know every case covered and some may very well involve shootings that are not justified. To be clear, an officer cannot jump in front of a moving car and simply claim self defense. However if the officer stands in front of a stopped car and that driver accelerates towards the officer then we have a situation where the driver is knowingly about to commit murder or serious assault which can justify a lethal force option.
Heck, look today, some idiot decided he wanted to run from Police in Wahiawa and hit one of the officers with his car. Luckily in the chase no one was seriously injured or killed but that could have easily ended up badly. If he ran into a car killing someone else then a bunch of people would be looking back and asking why the cops didn't shoot before the pursuit started. Why didn't they shoot? Probably a lot of factors we may learn about later. To a great extent officers have to decide between a few dangerous options with both having serious outcomes. They cannot always predict ahead of time which is the better decision.
Any shooting usually offers teachable moments for the department, and we can always look back and examine what could have been done differently and if any of the other options might have had a better outcome. I am sure the department does this in the investigation process and I am sure the officer does this in his/her head.
-
Another incident to add to the discussion. Different outcome, grant it is a different situation.
http://www.honolulupd.org/news/index.php?page=main&story=1501 (http://www.honolulupd.org/news/index.php?page=main&story=1501)
Around 11:00 a.m. today, officers in District 2 (Wahiawa) observed a vehicle with expired registration and safety tags on Ohai Place in Wahiawa. Officers approached the parked vehicle and that's when the driver, a 47-year-old man, tried to run them over. One of the officers was injured as he jumped out of the way. The vehicle fled in an unknown direction, but officers were able to locate it in Mililani driving erratically. The vehicle later crashed and was found on Makaimoimo Street near Lanikuhana Avenue.
The driver then gets out of the vehicle and assaults responding officers. The suspect was later arrested for numerous charges including attempted murder (2x), assault (3x), reckless driving, refusing to stop, and resisting arrest. His passenger, a juvenile female, was also arrested.
Three officers were injured in stable condition. The officers have 12, 14 and 26 years in the department; all are assigned to District 2 Crime Reduction Unit.
Interesting to see the officer in the Waikiki incident had 6 years of experience and these 3 officers in this incident have 12, 14 and 26 years experience.
-
Just because a duty to provide a standard of care to an individual does not exist for the police in tort law, does not mean there is no duty. Their contracts may require it, especially if uniformed.
Explain to me that statement, Chris. Are you saying that some duty to respond exists in SOME agencies due to contractual obligations? And, that of all the court cases that have found that police have no duty to protect you, those just happened to have been agencies that did not have said contractual obligation?
-
Last I checked swear words don't justify blows to the face. Now lets say you did have good reason to hit him in the face and then you go for the keys per the rest of your plan. Guess what, this has happened before (grabbing the keys) and often the officer gets dragged by the vehicle. Not so simple is it.
Oh and forgot to mention if the guy drives away dragging the officer and the officer shoots because his life is in danger they will still turn around and say the officer put him/herself in danger.
Officers have a job which requires them to place themselves within danger. If someone tells you that there is no duty to step in and protect then they don't know what they are talking about. If one person is beating up another and the officer stands and watches because he doesn't want to place himself in any danger then he gets fired for cowardice. Now there are limits of course, an officer isn't expected to go into a burning building, for example, but yes they are required to go protect someone.
If a cop watched a suspect stab your grandma to death and did nothing are we all just going to sit around and say to ourselves, sucks for grandma since the officer has no duty to protect.?
You are ill-informed and incorrect. In response to your statements:
Officers have a dangerous job but they are not required to protect you. If that was the case then we wouldn't have court cases finding that cowardly police, hiding in the steersman's cab of a subway train, watching a citizen battle a knife wielding killer, saying that, now would we?
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/nyc-police-duty-protect-hero-video/#axzz3DjCHHZST (http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/nyc-police-duty-protect-hero-video/#axzz3DjCHHZST)
And to answer your last question, yes, if a cop wants to sit around and watch grandma get stabbed, he can.
I don't mean to be rude, but you really should know a little something about a topic if you are going to comment on it, especially if you are going to make the allegation that others "...don't know what they are talking about.." Calling people out about their perceived ignorance when in fact it's you that are wrong is, well, rude and disrespectful.
-
An officer sprays the driver who then takes off and crashes into people because the pepper spray blinds him temporarily. Officers will be held liable, sorry it really isn't that simple.
Not likely. The officers acting in accordance with accepted practices and departmental policies will enjoy qualified immunity. So, no personal liability for the officer if the blinded driver runs into a crowd of people.
-
But "commoners" also don't have the duty to protect the public that officers do....
The police have no duty to protect the public. None. Supreme Court says so, multiple State courts have said so. Earliest case I've seen to reference that question is Riss v. New York, 1968. Cities do not even have a legal duty to establish a police force. Note the comment by the dissenting Judge in the Riss case. It's one I frequently use when l discuss this topic. This isn't a new legal concept, it's been around for a long, long time....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts)
Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."
"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."
Sources:
7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.
(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)
(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).
(8) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
New York Times, Washington DC
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005
The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
-
Explain to me that statement, Chris. Are you saying that some duty to respond exists in SOME agencies due to contractual obligations? And, that of all the court cases that have found that police have no duty to protect you, those just happened to have been agencies that did not have said contractual obligation?
Well, that could be an affirmative statement. I think those being paid to perform security functions could possibly be held liable for failing to act when being paid in that manner. I think that would be a different spin, and I would have to go look up the actual facts of the other case.
What I am really saying is that these officers are under a contract / obligation with the city. Failure to act could see them getting dinged by the city.
Some states also criminalize failures for police to perform some functions, like execute a warrant. Whether or not they have pursued those types of charges, I don't know. But they have it on the books.
-
Well, that could be an affirmative statement. I think those being paid to perform security functions could possibly be held liable for failing to act when being paid in that manner. I think that would be a different spin, and I would have to go look up the actual facts of the other case.
What I am really saying is that these officers are under a contract / obligation with the city. Failure to act could see them getting dinged by the city.
Some states also criminalize failures for police to perform some functions, like execute a warrant. Whether or not they have pursued those types of charges, I don't know. But they have it on the books.
Interesting. But in terms of the police having a legal duty to protect you, that doesn't really change anything. They may suffer some employer sanction, but no real legal jeopardy.
I think I mentioned to you previously that one of the recent candidates said, in response to my statement that police have no duty to protect anyone, that in Hawaii, there was a court case that essentially said the police had an affirmative duty to protect citizens. I asked him to cite the case and of course he couldn't, but I'd like to see if that is actually true....which I doubt.
-
Interesting. But in terms of the police having a legal duty to protect you, that doesn't really change anything. They may suffer some employer sanction, but no real legal jeopardy.
I think I mentioned to you previously that one of the recent candidates said, in response to my statement that police have no duty to protect anyone, that in Hawaii, there was a court case that essentially said the police had an affirmative duty to protect citizens. I asked him to cite the case and of course he couldn't, but I'd like to see if that is actually true....which I doubt.
I'll check westlaw, but I doubt it.
-
There's an app for that
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.konami.DASH.frogger_IGA&hl=en (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.konami.DASH.frogger_IGA&hl=en)
(http://www.theirishduck.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/frogger.png)
Frogger don't carry firearms and mob you with a plague of other frogs.
-
Not likely. The officers acting in accordance with accepted practices and departmental policies will enjoy qualified immunity. So, no personal liability for the officer if the blinded driver runs into a crowd of people.
Officers are not supposed to use pepper spray on drivers for that very reason. I was just pointing out that certain other non lethal/less lethal options are not allowed to officers when it comes to these types of situations.
-
Explain to me that statement, Chris. Are you saying that some duty to respond exists in SOME agencies due to contractual obligations? And, that of all the court cases that have found that police have no duty to protect you, those just happened to have been agencies that did not have said contractual obligation?
One of the commonly cited article for that argument is in a separate part of the USA (NYC I believe) covered by a different circuit court so it might be faulty to assume that Hawaii would fall under the same ruling.
The article you cited is about a lawsuit, and the department's defense. It says nothing about who won the suit or the legitimacy of the departments defense argument. Again unless is goes to the supreme court we are talking about a different circuit.
As for the supreme court cases you cite, notice how it repeats the word "individual." Granted I am not a lawyer but I do believe that this means the department is not required to provide special protection to a particular individual, a cop doesn't have to provide you with more protection than it does the rest of the public. I highly doubt it is a license for officers to simply ignore a crime occurring because they feel like it. Are there any lawyers here who would like to clarify the use of the word individual?
On top of whatever legal obligation may or may not exist, officers can be fired for things like cowardice. So in the end there is an obligation for officers to act.
-
I have a clarifying question for people here related to these occurrences.
If an officer steps in front of a stopped car, instructing the driver to stop, and the driver of the car accelerates quickly towards the officer, is that driver guilty of attempted murder/attempted assault with a deadly weapon?
I ask this question because it has been repeatedly portrayed here that officers are throwing themselves in front of speeding cars and claiming self defense which is different than most of the recent shootings of drivers by the HPD.
-
I have a clarifying question for people here related to these occurrences.
If an officer steps in front of a stopped car, instructing the driver to stop, and the driver of the car accelerates quickly towards the officer, is that driver guilty of attempted murder/attempted assault with a deadly weapon?
I ask this question because it has been repeatedly portrayed here that officers are throwing themselves in front of speeding cars and claiming self defense which is different than most of the recent shootings of drivers by the HPD.
First, if the car is already stopped, why would the officer be instructing the driver to stop? Wouldn't the officer be better off instructing the driver to exit the vehicle?
Second, if the officer has placed themselves in front of a 1.5 ton mass of metal, capable of smashing them like a bug, they have put themselves in an untenable situation. Basically like begging to be run over. Where I'm from we call this "stupidity" as the officer has placed their life in the hands of a criminal, who by definition, doesn't give rats ass about the law. Much less the officer trying to enforce it.
Is the driver guilty of attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon? Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that the officer in question has made some pretty poor decisions in how to handle the situation.
-
Officers are not supposed to use pepper spray on drivers for that very reason. I was just pointing out that certain other non lethal/less lethal options are not allowed to officers when it comes to these types of situations.
No, you were not. You were asserting that an officer could be held liable for unintended consequences resulting from their actions. With rare exception, police acting in accordance with department policy and procedures are rarely held personally liable.
-
One of the commonly cited article for that argument is in a separate part of the USA (NYC I believe) covered by a different circuit court so it might be faulty to assume that Hawaii would fall under the same ruling.
Ahhh, you lost me here. Which argument are you referencing? If it's that the police have no legal duty to protect anyone, then you are totally incorrect. Castlerock v. Gonzales, a SCOTUS case, definitively stated that fact clearly and as a SCOTUS decision, is the law of the land, Hawaii included.
The article you cited is about a lawsuit, and the department's defense. It says nothing about who won the suit or the legitimacy of the departments defense argument. Again unless is goes to the supreme court we are talking about a different circuit.
Really? Google is your friend and your lack of legal acumen and unwillingness to actually research information before making stupid comments is a telling indication that you have a closed mind unreceptive to any information that is counter to your position. All you had to do is spend 10 seconds to google the name of the stabbing victim that brought the suit to find that the Judge dismissed the case, finding (based on multiple cross circuit and SCOTUS decisions) that the police had no legal duty to protect him (or any individual not in police custody). So, try and get this through your myopic and predetermined mind, that case will NEVER go to the SCOTUS. It DOESN"T NEED TO. THE DECISION HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE BY THE SCOTUS.
http://nypost.com/2013/07/26/zero-for-hero-judge-snubs-man-hurt-stopping-butcher-of-brighton-beach/ (http://nypost.com/2013/07/26/zero-for-hero-judge-snubs-man-hurt-stopping-butcher-of-brighton-beach/)
http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/fcas_docs/2013JUL/3001010882012002SCIV.pdf (http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/fcas_docs/2013JUL/3001010882012002SCIV.pdf)
Here's a little excerpt from the Judge's ruling since I doubt you'll actually read it....
However, it is well settled that absent a special relationship, discretionary governmental
functions such as the provision of police protection are immune from tort liability (see Valdez v City
of New York, 18 NY3d 69 [2011]; CufJL v City ofNew York, 69 NY2d 255 [1987]; Kircher v City
of Jamestown, 74 NY2d 25 1 [ 19891 Yearwood v Town of Brighton, 64 NY2d 667 [ 19841). Despite
even very sympathetic facts, public policy demands that a damaged plaintiff be able to identify the
duty owed specifically to him or her, not a general duty to society at large (see Lauer v City ofnlew
York, 95 NY2d 95 [2000]; Johnson v Jamaica Hosp., 62 NY2d 523,527 [1984]; Palsgraf v Long
Is. R.R. Co., 248 NY 339 [ 19281). “This is especially so where an individual seeks recovery out of
the public purse.” (see Lauer v City of New York, 95 NY2d at 100). The law is abundantly clear that
no liability flows from negligence in the performance of a police function unless there is a special
relationship (see Yearwood v Town of Brighton, 64 NY2d 667). Even giving Mr. Lozito every
favorable inference (see Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308 [1987]), this court
nonetheless is bound to grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss; plaintiffs have failed to allege a
prima facie case of negligence as these facts do not establish a special relationship.
As for the supreme court cases you cite, notice how it repeats the word "individual." Granted I am not a lawyer but I do believe that this means the department is not required to provide special protection to a particular individual, a cop doesn't have to provide you with more protection than it does the rest of the public. I highly doubt it is a license for officers to simply ignore a crime occurring because they feel like it. Are there any lawyers here who would like to clarify the use of the word individual?
Jeez man, did you not read the article about the NYC stabbing? Two NYPD officers hid in a locked motorman's cab and watched the bad guy repeatedly stab the citizen. It was not until the citizen, despite his grievous wounds, had subdued the stabber that the two officers left the safety of the motorman's cab to take custody of the him. So, despite your highly researched opinion that " I highly doubt it is a license for officers to simply ignore a crime occurring because they feel like it..." that is EXACTLY what happened in this case (and others if you actually chose to research the subject), the police not only "ignore[d]" the crime, they actually stood by and witnessed the attack without even attempting to intervene. So much for your erudite opinion....
On top of whatever legal obligation may or may not exist, officers can be fired for things like cowardice. So in the end there is an obligation for officers to act.
There may be some employment consequences for failing to act, but in most cases, such as the NYC case cited, the Warren v. Washington D.C. case, or the Castlerock v. Gonzales case, no extrajudicial (employer) sanctions were effected. And, there may be some moral or ethical obligations, but these too are meaningless in terms of making a victim whole in the instances police do fail to respond. Your argument is not based on legal fact and reality, and your attempt to somehow infer even some modicum of obligation clearly shows how terribly uninformed you are and how unwilling you are to accept that you're wrong.
-
First, if the car is already stopped, why would the officer be instructing the driver to stop? Wouldn't the officer be better off instructing the driver to exit the vehicle?
Second, if the officer has placed themselves in front of a 1.5 ton mass of metal, capable of smashing them like a bug, they have put themselves in an untenable situation. Basically like begging to be run over. Where I'm from we call this "stupidity" as the officer has placed their life in the hands of a criminal, who by definition, doesn't give rats ass about the law. Much less the officer trying to enforce it.
Is the driver guilty of attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon? Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that the officer in question has made some pretty poor decisions in how to handle the situation.
The officer might be instructing the person to turn off the car, or exit it, but that is nitpicking and not really relevant.
Trying to stop a car from behind is not very effective, and lets face it, officers sometimes need to stop cars and do so by placing themselves in front of a vehicle. This is true whether it is stopping a suspect or merely directing traffic. Try flagging down a speeder from behind, it doesn't work so well.
My position is this: Police officers sometimes have to stand in front of vehicles to get them to stop however this can be done in a stupid way or a smarter way. The stupid way would involve jumping in front of an already moving vehicle in such a way they are bound to be hit. The smarter way is stepping in front of a stopped vehicle, identifying yourself as an officer, giving verbal commands, and making sure you have somewhere you can retreat to.
-
No, you were not. You were asserting that an officer could be held liable for unintended consequences resulting from their actions. With rare exception, police acting in accordance with department policy and procedures are rarely held personally liable.
And by pepper spraying a driver they would be violating policy and/or training which would mean they could be held liable.
-
So why are we as taxpayers paying a ridiculous amount of money to police officers who have not duty to protect the average citizen? What is their primary duty, if it's not to protect citizens from felony type crimes? We might as well abolish the police department and just walk around armed and take matters into our own hands, IMHO.
-
Sheesh already.....
-
Hicarry, after reading the court document, specifically the definition of special relationship, I will conceded that in fact you are right from a legal standpoint however I maintain that a level of accountability does exist in the form of departmental policy. Granted some departments might not have such policy but here on Oahu officers can be held accountable for inaction. From reading various articles though it appears that governments can implement laws penalizing inaction. I could not find what states, if any, have passed laws requiring police action to intervene.
-
So why are we as taxpayers paying a ridiculous amount of money to police officers who have not duty to protect the average citizen? What is their primary duty, if it's not to protect citizens from felony type crimes? We might as well abolish the police department and just walk around armed and take matters into our own hands, IMHO.
Because that would do relatively little to stop much of the crime. The average member of the public does not have the resources or training to investigate serious crimes. If the only crime people had to worry about was robbery then your suggestion might work but fact is we have very low violent crime for a city our size.
-
http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/4913117-Addressing-cops-confusion-over-the-public-duty-doctrine/ (http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/4913117-Addressing-cops-confusion-over-the-public-duty-doctrine/)
Addressing cops' confusion over 'the public duty doctrine'
Proper training on the principles of the public duty doctrine and how it applies to police officers is essential to avoid liability on the part of the department and officers
Courts typically find that no duty has been established and deny recovery for “injuries caused by the failure of police personnel to respond to requests for assistance, the failure to investigate properly, or the failure to investigate at all, where the police had not induced reliance on a promise, express or implied, that they would provide protection.”16For example, a plaintiff was unable to establish a duty on behalf of police when police failed to respond to a plea for assistance forty-five minutes before a homicide.17
The courts, however, have found that police officers may create a “special relationship” with individuals in certain circumstances, thereby establishing a duty of care to that individual. This “special relationship” may be created when an officer performs an affirmative act which places a person in peril or increases the risk of harm. For example, an officer who investigated an accident and instructed an individual to follow him to the middle of the intersection, where the individual was hit by another car, established a duty of care for that person;18 a highway patrol officer established a duty to an individual when he parked his vehicle with lights engaged behind the stalled motorist, but later left the scene without warning the motorist who had relied upon his protection and was struck by another car.19
-
We know legally police don't have to put their lives in danger to protect our lives. Do you think a union would allow an officer to be fired for not doing so?
Also the majority of officers are not trained to investigate serious crimes they have investigators for that.
-
Hicarry, after reading the court document, specifically the definition of special relationship, I will conceded that in fact you are right from a legal standpoint however I maintain that a level of accountability does exist in the form of departmental policy. Granted some departments might not have such policy but here on Oahu officers can be held accountable for inaction. From reading various articles though it appears that governments can implement laws penalizing inaction. I could not find what states, if any, have passed laws requiring police action to intervene.
OK, so it's taken 3+ pages of posts to finally convince you that you were wrong about a long-standing, well established legal concept. Yet, it appears you still cling to some hope that you'll successfully argue that there is, at some level, somewhere in a policy or procedure, that small quasi-legal or administrative obligation to act. You confuse accountability of one's actions from an absence of action resulting from no obligation to take any action at all.
I've seen police fired or disciplined for all manner of actions, be it excessive force, drunk driving, or not doing paperwork (obviously an employer mandated obligation), but I have not heard of any case for not taking some action (unless it was because they were sleeping on the job...), but you made the claim. So your turn to supply the supporting documentation that validates your assertion that departmental policy oblige officers to respond under under threat of discipline, and provide a few case histories. Could there be some cases of officers being disciplined for not taking some protective action? I'm sure there are, but I'm betting that it's more for not supporting their brother officers in the course of some response, rather than failing to act in protection of a citizen. But, facts, not emotions, are what's important, and I'm anxious to see your research.
-
We know legally police don't have to put their lives in danger to protect our lives. Do you think a union would allow an officer to be fired for not doing so?
If it is in the policy then sure, you can be fired for violating policy.
-
OK, so it's taken 3+ pages of posts to finally convince you that you were wrong about a long-standing, well established legal concept. Yet, it appears you still cling to some hope that you'll successfully argue that there is, at some level, somewhere in a policy or procedure, that small quasi-legal or administrative obligation to act. You confuse accountability of one's actions from an absence of action resulting from no obligation to take any action at all.
I've seen police fired or disciplined for all manner of actions, be it excessive force, drunk driving, or not doing paperwork (obviously an employer mandated obligation), but I have not heard of any case for not taking some action (unless it was because they were sleeping on the job...), but you made the claim. So your turn to supply the supporting documentation that validates your assertion that departmental policy oblige officers to respond under under threat of discipline, and provide a few case histories. Could there be some cases of officers being disciplined for not taking some protective action? I'm sure there are, but I'm betting that it's more for not supporting their brother officers in the course of some response, rather than failing to act in protection of a citizen. But, facts, not emotions, are what's important, and I'm anxious to see your research.
I don't know whether anyone has ever been fired for a failure to act, but the possibility certainly exists. If an officer were given an ultimatum of resign or be fired and the officer resigned the I don't think it would be public. It might be that no officer has ever been fired for it. The accountability exists in the department's policy, whether the department has enforced violations of that policy is another question.
-
I don't know whether anyone has ever been fired for a failure to act, but the possibility certainly exists. If an officer were given an ultimatum of resign or be fired and the officer resigned the I don't think it would be public. It might be that no officer has ever been fired for it. The accountability exists in the department's policy, whether the department has enforced violations of that policy is another question.
Once again, not a single fact exists in all of your words.
"I don't know..."
"If an officer..."
"I don't think..."
"It might be..."
"whether ... is another question."
The only thing in that response that resembles a statement of fact is, "The accountability exists in the department's policy,"
Are you implying (or stating unequivocally) that there is a department policy holding police individually accountable for failure to protect? Is that a fact?
-
Once again, not a single fact exists in all of your words.
"I don't know..."
"If an officer..."
"I don't think..."
"It might be..."
"whether ... is another question."
The only thing in that response that resembles a statement of fact is, "The accountability exists in the department's policy,"
Are you implying (or stating unequivocally) that there is a department policy holding police individually accountable for failure to protect? Is that a fact?
This guys entire argument is based on hypotheticals and possibilities.
He's presented absolutely nothing factual.
I think he believes that even though the entire world knows he's wrong, if he just keeps saying the same thing over and over, eventually he will be right.
Who said "The definition of insanity, is to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result"?
-
I don't know whether anyone has ever been fired for a failure to act, but the possibility certainly exists. If an officer were given an ultimatum of resign or be fired and the officer resigned the I don't think it would be public. It might be that no officer has ever been fired for it. The accountability exists in the department's policy, whether the department has enforced violations of that policy is another question.
So, you're still at it? Making unsubstantiated statements that you refuse to even try an qualify with facts....these are the same types of non-fact based, emotional arguments we constantly hear from anti-gun activists.....
And, it was Einstein who was famously quoted that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
-
If it is in the policy then sure, you can be fired for violating policy.
Show us the policy...go ahead, we'll wait.......
-
Show us the policy...go ahead, we'll wait.......
(http://i.imgur.com/yJcgT0D.jpg)
-
So, you're still at it? Making unsubstantiated statements that you refuse to even try an qualify with facts....these are the same types of non-fact based, emotional arguments we constantly hear from anti-gun activists.....
And, it was Einstein who was famously quoted that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
You guys have asked for an instance in which an officer was fired/disciplined for a failure to act. Internal discipline is not made public so how am I supposed to cite that? A lack of an instance of an officer fired for failure to act does not prove that the accountability does not exist.
Let me ask you this then, do you doubt that policy exists holding officers accountable for failure to act? Do you think there would be no internal repercussions if an officer failed to act without good reason?
Ok, here is something I was able to find from the police commission annual report where it states certain violations. Refer to page 12 under dereliction of duty.
http://www.honolulupd.org/downloads/HPC2013AnnualReport.pdf (http://www.honolulupd.org/downloads/HPC2013AnnualReport.pdf)
"Officers and employees shall render assistance to another officer, an employee or to the public during an incident that may result in personal injury, property damage or loss."
Notice it says shall and not "should render assistance", or "render assistance if you feel like it." Failure to render aid is clearly a punishable violation of policy.
-
CONGRATULATIONS! It was like pulling teeth, but you finally did some research and found actual substantiating information for one of your suppositions! Well done!
The problem I see is these are not policies. These are standards of conduct used for complaints reported by the public.
For an officer to be punished, the complaint must be filed by a citizen within 60 days of an incident, must contain facts vs. hypothetical speculation, and must be within the jurisdiction of the Honolulu Police Commission.
Therefore, if a citizen fails to file a complaint in a timely manner, the officer will not be punished.
Nothing in the document eludes to disciplinary action under these guidelines as a matter of policy in absence of a public complaint.
It's nice they have these complaint guidelines to give the public a framework when reporting misconduct. But I don't see anything here that would be, as you stated, "a punishable violation of policy."
Close! There may be similar internal policies, but this isn't it.
-
You guys have asked for an instance in which an officer was fired/disciplined for a failure to act. Internal discipline is not made public so how am I supposed to cite that? A lack of an instance of an officer fired for failure to act does not prove that the accountability does not exist.
Let me ask you this then, do you doubt that policy exists holding officers accountable for failure to act? Do you think there would be no internal repercussions if an officer failed to act without good reason?
Ok, here is something I was able to find from the police commission annual report where it states certain violations. Refer to page 12 under dereliction of duty.
http://www.honolulupd.org/downloads/HPC2013AnnualReport.pdf (http://www.honolulupd.org/downloads/HPC2013AnnualReport.pdf)
"Officers and employees shall render assistance to another officer, an employee or to the public during an incident that may result in personal injury, property damage or loss."
Notice it says shall and not "should render assistance", or "render assistance if you feel like it." Failure to render aid is clearly a punishable violation of policy.
Dude, you still don't get it....you made the claim, now own it. If not, quit trying to state as fact that which is only your "belief," your unsubstantiated belief with no factual basis on which to rest your argument. You ask on one hand how you should know this information since it's not made public, failing to see the irony of you asking us to then believe something we can't validate either, just because it seems reasonable or logical to you.
Furthermore, that same document says that officers "shall be courteous toward the public and shall not use harsh, abusive, disparaging or insulting remarks..." How many cops have been "punished" for violating these standards, based on how frequently we all know them to happen? It also says that they shall not use profanity in public. Again, how many do you think are punished for this infraction?
As to your question, I have already stipulated that these policies may exist, and if they do, that any failure to act that resulted in disciplinary action would most likely stem from the perception that he failed to assist his brother officer, not that he failed to protect a citizen. You are the one that continues to argue otherwise. Please try to keep up.
-
CONGRATULATIONS! It was like pulling teeth, but you finally did some research and found actual substantiating information for one of your suppositions! Well done!
The problem I see is these are not policies. These are standards of conduct used for complaints reported by the public.
For an officer to be punished, the complaint must be filed by a citizen within 60 days of an incident, must contain facts vs. hypothetical speculation, and must be within the jurisdiction of the Honolulu Police Commission.
Therefore, if a citizen fails to file a complaint in a timely manner, the officer will not be punished.
Nothing in the document eludes to disciplinary action under these guidelines as a matter of policy in absence of a public complaint.
It's nice they have these complaint guidelines to give the public a framework when reporting misconduct. But I don't see anything here that would be, as you stated, "a punishable violation of policy."
Close! There may be similar internal policies, but this isn't it.
Of course you need a public complainant since the incident would really require someone to suffer or witness a suffering of the officer's lack of action. Since the Dereliction of Duty is under the standard of conduct policy it is something that an officer could be disciplined by a supervisor as well if the supervisor were to witness it. Why do you think that this could be a policy that is not punishable if violated. Any policy violation could be punished otherwise no one would have any reason to follow policy.
Now you say that if someone fails to file a complaint in a timely manner then the officer will not be punished, this is not that surprising, criminal laws have statutes of limitations and if you miss those then you are just as out of luck.
-
Dude, you still don't get it....you made the claim, now own it. If not, quit trying to state as fact that which is only your "belief," your unsubstantiated belief with no factual basis on which to rest your argument. You ask on one hand how you should know this information since it's not made public, failing to see the irony of you asking us to then believe something we can't validate either, just because it seems reasonable or logical to you.
Furthermore, that same document says that officers "shall be courteous toward the public and shall not use harsh, abusive, disparaging or insulting remarks..." How many cops have been "punished" for violating these standards, based on how frequently we all know them to happen? It also says that they shall not use profanity in public. Again, how many do you think are punished for this infraction?
As to your question, I have already stipulated that these policies may exist, and if they do, that any failure to act that resulted in disciplinary action would most likely stem from the perception that he failed to assist his brother officer, not that he failed to protect a citizen. You are the one that continues to argue otherwise. Please try to keep up.
I made the claim and was able to finally dig up something that supported my claim.
I made no claim to officers being punished for the use of profanity but I did check a little for you, if you scroll down to page 22, you will see that in 2013 six complaints were made for officers using profanity. Then scroll down to page 26 and it shows how many complaints were sustained, unsustained, or exonerated.
You say that such policies may exist but "most likely" come from failing to assist a fellow officer. This document shows that it is something the public can make a complaint about.
-
Of course you need a public complainant since the incident would really require someone to suffer or witness a suffering of the officer's lack of action. Since the Dereliction of Duty is under the standard of conduct policy it is something that an officer could be disciplined by a supervisor as well if the supervisor were to witness it. Why do you think that this could be a policy that is not punishable if violated. Any policy violation could be punished otherwise no one would have any reason to follow policy.
Now you say that if someone fails to file a complaint in a timely manner then the officer will not be punished, this is not that surprising, criminal laws have statutes of limitations and if you miss those then you are just as out of luck.
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO AND NO!
You cannot extrapolate an HPC Guideline specifically related to public complaints and deduce that this equates to an internal policy without some sort of evidence. To argue otherwise is not rational.
Show us a link to the HPD policies on officer conduct and the internal reporting and related disciplinary actions for each standard. Policies require more detail than guidelines for public complaints. Policies have standards, reporting procedures, and consequences. They also go into whether you can have a lawyer or union rep present when answering the charges against you.
If you think these guidelines rise to the level of department policies, you haven't been around much!
-
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO AND NO!
You cannot extrapolate an HPC Guideline specifically related to public complaints and deduce that this equates to an internal policy without some sort of evidence. To argue otherwise is not rational.
Show us a link to the HPD policies on officer conduct and the internal reporting and related disciplinary actions for each standard. Policies require more detail than guidelines for public complaints. Policies have standards, reporting procedures, and consequences. They also go into whether you can have a lawyer or union rep present when answering the charges against you.
If you think these guidelines rise to the level of department policies, you haven't been around much!
These guidelines address violations of departmental policy. Do you think it is just a suggestion when it says "shall render assistance"?
Why would the police commission investigate a complaint unless it was something that the officer was doing that was against the rules? Would the police commission address a complaint of an officer having pink sunglasses if there were no regulations on the color of officer's sunglasses? Then why would it bother to investigate complaints of profanity if there was nothing prohibiting officers from using profane language.
Believe me, if I carried a police policy in my back pocket I would post it for you. The Chief has said he will make police policy more available to the public but for now I cannot seem to find a link on the internet anywhere. If I call up a friend and he gives you the specific page and section would that satisfy you?
-
These guidelines address violations of departmental policy. Do you think it is just a suggestion when it says "shall render assistance"?
Why would the police commission investigate a complaint unless it was something that the officer was doing that was against the rules? Would the police commission address a complaint of an officer having pink sunglasses if there were no regulations on the color of officer's sunglasses? Then why would it bother to investigate complaints of profanity if there was nothing prohibiting officers from using profane language.
Believe me, if I carried a police policy in my back pocket I would post it for you. The Chief has said he will make police policy more available to the public but for now I cannot seem to find a link on the internet anywhere. If I call up a friend and he gives you the specific page and section would that satisfy you?
You really think that way? ALL complaints by the public, if filed ]in 60 days, will be investigated. You think an investigation only happens if the officer violated a rule? No.
The investigation takes place BEFORE a determination can be made as to whether a rule is broken. If they are going to determine whether the officer broke a rule before investigating, then what's the purpose of investigating? Do you see how illogical what you are saying is??
So, if you have access to the information, and it's not online, then whatever you can provide ASSUMING IT IS BASED ON ACTUAL FACTS is appreciated. Trying to convince us your reasoning is correct with no facts to back them up is getting tiresome.
-
OK, even I have had enough.
Moderator, please lock this topic.
-
OK, even I have had enough.
Moderator, please lock this topic.
For the love of all that is good and decent in the world, please do!
And while at it, please lock that other Obama thread, too...
-
Yes, I think that there has been enough input from both sides, thank you for the impassioned debate.